WI tour of England, July 8-28

[mikesiva]

Blackwood with a brain dead shot. Out for 12.

[sussexpob]

Thats a poor shot from JB.....5 down and England are a wicket away from exposing the bowlers.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Batting's just starting. Dowrich and Holder.

[Alviro Patterson]

Brooks out for 39. Four down.

Why did he review that?

In real time Brooks looked so concentrated in protecting his stumps, he didn't realise the ball nipping in.

[alfie]

Still a lot of handy batting to come ...but getting Blackwood cheaply was important as he can take the game away quickly if he gets his eye in.

Dowritch not messing about either ! Certainly taking Bess on...wonder how Stokes will react ?

[Alviro Patterson]

Though the present system works on a balance between an on field observer and technology on the presumption that neither is infallable. So it may be that no on field umpires would lead to more wrong decisions.

Id argue that the umpires are just there for continuing a traditional aspect of the game for the purists, and rather than actually seek to create the most accurate system possible using all the available tools that modern technology gives us, the current decision making process sacrifices a lot of accuracy in order to justify the umpire standing there for hours. We know the given tolerance of the technology and its error rating, placing a larger level of tolerance over that threshold to actually correct the technology being right for human wrong decisions. I bet you could code hawkeyes umpires call right to the edge of its margin of error, and go test matches before the accuracy failure leads to an uncertain decision. The real irony is that technology is being used as superior to confirm or reject decisions, but then often is corrected by known human error.... its very bizarre.

But hey, I actually wasnt suggesting a full tech system...... an umpire watching can still give it out, and hawkeye can give its own decision. An umpire presses his decision button, hawkeye calculates it on the current used margins, and if its in umpires call that decision stands, if hes way off in accuracy the system just automatically overturns it. An appeal is lodged and youd have a decision pretty much instantly.

Except a DRS decision is not made instantly, as it takes time for Hawkeye to calculate the projection of the ball. No standing umpires just slows the game down further when test cricket is already criticised for not being able to fit 90 overs in a days play.

[Arthur Crabtree]

All square.

So will WI give way for a 40 run lead.

Or will they grind a dispirited attack for 150 more?

[alfie]

All square.

So will WI give way for a 40 run lead.

Or will they grind a dispirited attack for 150 more?

Well that is the Big Question , no ? Really could go either way and you'd think the next two hours might basically decide this match.
Fifty lead , Advantage England - with WI to bat last . One hundred and fifty and the tourists should have it in the bag. I'm betting somewhere in between...

This fence is quite comfortable

[sussexpob]

Except a DRS decision is not made instantly, as it takes time for Hawkeye to calculate the projection of the ball. No standing umpires just slows the game down further when test cricket is already criticised for not being able to fit 90 overs in a days play.

Takes less than a second for the 3D model to work out a decision. The exact same 6 camera tracking system is used in football and the referee gets a vibration in real time if the tracking system deems the ball has gone in, if you need proof. If it takes longer for the third umpire in cricket, its entirely down to the broadcaster taking time and the theatre of seeing the decision being deemed part of the drama of the sport. Just like a referee in football gets a vibration in real time, soo to could the onfield umpire to tell him the ball was hitting if the desire to have full technology in the game was prevalent. And as previous discussions a while back about snicko with Delta alpha, a visual snicko is a waste of time and only there for the entertainment value, you could put a sound gate to trigger at certain frequencies and a light go off behind the stumps instantly if the microphone detects an edge. In fact that would be massively more accurate than the current system, where people just see slight movement of a sound wave, even though the type of movement does not at all correspond to the sound waves produced when bat hits ball.... so many snicko decisions are made when its obvious to anyone whos ever done anything with sound that what is registered is a background interference.

So yes, its entirely viable and would be far more accurate. The only argument against it is maintaining traditional roles for umpires.

[sussexpob]

And indeed there have been several decisions involved so I can understand why the argument is raised. I just think we should wait and watch the rest of the game before getting carried away. I'd be concerned if it continued throughout but we are only 14 wickets out of 40 so far...

The decisions that have gone in the game are only really the underlining of the argument for me, the real problem is the frankly bizarre decision to have 5 umpires on the ECB payroll and 3 ex-internationals of England forming the whole basis of the officiating team. I struggle to think of any sport where such an occurrence would be allowed to happen, and in doing so you place the integrity of the sport into question if you have issues. The last couple of days play is an example of the problem; if there was a Pakistani and Indian umpire out in the middle making the exact decisions, nothing would have been said most likely, but the fact is we have witnessed two English lads giving everything to their side, so the can of worms gets blown open. I can understand why you are of the opinion not to overreact on the officiating, but I think the horse has kind of bolted already.

If England start coping bad decisions now, not sure it changes that. If an umpire goes back to his hotel and flicks through the cricket pages and sees criticism, he is equally as likely to let that perception of his bias transfer the other way. So if we end up in test 2 with two English umpires desperate to prove they arent bias after complaints or criticism, we could then see England getting the wrong end of an umpire out to prove his integrity.

Bottom line.... in 2020 no official ICC match should have a home umpire in charge. I feel quite strongly about that

[sussexpob]

Tough return chance for Bess there. Dowrich has shown a desire to take on a few balls, bit premeditated and got in the wrong position to take that one on, could have easily been out but gets a little lucky with the shot coming back high towards the bowler, and Bess didnt have much time to pick it out the air at that pace

[sussexpob]

I always had Dowrich down as the type of batsman that made Mike Atherton look like a slogger, but hes really been keen to put his weight into a few strokes today. Maybe I am wrong and hes a stroke making genius.

[Arthur Crabtree]

In the umpires defence, when you see Sheffield United put a ball 2 yards past the line in a football match a couple of weeks ago and hawkeye not give it, it does make you wonder about how great the tech is. Every now and then it throws up duds, certainly the ball Alfie referenced raised an eyebrow

So yes, its entirely viable and would be far more accurate. The only argument against it is maintaining traditional roles for umpires.

It seems that's the problem. No one system works. The way it is balanced at the moment seems to. Both systems produce howlers, but both systems are unlikely to produce howlers simultaneously.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Only two fifty partnerships in the Test. Not far off another though. At a damaging tine for England.

[sussexpob]

Only two fifty partnerships in the Test. Not far off another though. At a damaging tine for England.

England's bowlers just havent been consistent enough. Archer has been a bit all over, Woods been too short, and while Bess occasionally beats a batsman in flight, there is a lot of dross inbetween.